Toe’s review of Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? > Likes and Comments
116 likes · Like
Wow you do not get it to say the least.
Nina wrote: "Wow you do not get it to say the least."
Nina, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment. I will consider your thorough criticism at length. I particularly appreciate the specific points of mine that you refuted as it gives me much to ponder in the coming days and, indeed, for the rest of my life.
Haha! I love your response to Nina. That's just too funny. Your review was fantastic! I almost picked this book up but I think I will read The End of Racism you recommended instead. Thanks for your thoughtful review.
This is a great review. It's amazing to me how many people actually believe that racism can be solved with more racism. The recommendation of D'Souza is a perfect counterpoint to her ridiculous arguments.
I think it's safe to say that I would never consider anyone who has ever been on Fox News, or ever will be, to be a good representative of people in general. There's a gray area when it comes to people who are libertarians and just putting those ideas out there, but at the end of the day libertarianism is as practical as communism. For example, as long as the civil rights act protects "white" people just as much as anyone else then it's a necessary compromise between freedom and equality.
On the other hand, affirmative action acts as a counter-meritocracy. It is not as bad as apartheid, but it is not the same as equal opportunity employment. Affirmative action is bad for everyone because it maintains the status quo instead of encouraging people to study more or work harder in order to advance. Because of this I fail to see how it's anything besides a complete disservice in the long run.
So I think people either want to believe in racism or they don't. People believe in racism because they think it will solve problems, but it only creates more problems.
Despite "not wanting to waste time on this," I can see that you have written quite a thorough rant here as well as spent considerable time thinking of witty insults to post to your commenters. Look, if you want to read books by people that agree with you, go subscribe to the National Review. It looks like you made up your mind before you cracked open this book, so there's going to be nothing in it for you. I think these kinds of self-satisfied internet monologues are often more for the self gratification of those who write them, than for anyone in particular that they are directed to. So it looks like you have achieved your ends.
Mel, your insights were refreshingly accurate. The National Review is an outstanding publication, my statements were saturated with wit, and I am extremely gratified and satisfied with self.
It's much easier to believe in hidden racism than it is to realize that life is hard for everyone and that everything is more complicated than it seems.
My sentiments EXACTLY.
God, this book is poisonous and filled with hate.
I think we have enough hate.
I just finished this book. I'm looking at page 48 where she talks about the Lion King for two short paragraphs and she does not once mention that Scar's mane is black--so I don't know how "Tatum makes too much of the fact that Scar's mane is black." She says in the second paragraph that her sons disagreed with her and that was okay with her. From the characterization that you wrote, she seems loony, but what she's actually doing, in that particular instance, is trying to start a dialogue about race in the media. Not so nuts, really.
I think this book was right on. I didn't find any of her points to be "racist" at all--because they weren't. The fact that she argues that we are breathing racism in like smog shows that she doesn't think whites are inherently racist. People learn racial biases like they learn any other social custom. She talks extensively about how positive identities are developed as either a white person or a black person.
It almost seems like I read a different book than you did because you say that Tatum made claims or said something that she just didn't say.
When I first came across strong antiracist personalities, I was sort of offended. "I would never oppress someone! Jay-Z has more money than me, how can you say I have more privilege!" I'm embarrassed to admit it now. So I mean, I get it. But give it some time and maybe try again.
I read this book over three years ago, but I'm not in the habit of intentionally misrepresenting authors. The relevant portion of pg. 48 says:
"For example, when discussing with [her children] my plans to talk about media stereotyping in this book, I offered the example of the Disney film The Lion King. A very popular family film, I was dismayed at the use of ethnically identifiable voices to characterize the hyenas, clearly the undesirables in the film. The Spanish-accented voice of Cheech Marin and the Black slang of Whoopi Goldberg clearly marked the hyenas racially. The little Lion King is warned never to go to the place where the hyenas live. When the evil lion (darker in shade than the good lions) takes over, and the hyenas have access to power, it is not long before they have ruined the kingdom. 'There goes the neighborhood.'"
Some observations:
1. You're correct that her children disagree with her. Thank god they are more sane than their mother.
2. She explicitly mentions the evil lion is a darker shade than the good lions. Scar's darker shade comes mostly from his black mane as opposed to Mufasa's light brown mane.
3. You have reconfirmed in my mind that this author is a loon, a fool, and a dangerous charlatan. Thanks.
Whether it's intentional or not, from my point of view you did misrepresent it. It doesn't have to be intentional for it to take place. I gave another example of why I feel you were misrepresenting it, but it's like Lion King overshadows everything for you. Which is okay, I guess, because it's an excellent film in my opinion (although I can still critique it on a few fronts), but it seems by focusing on that alone you're missing out on a wider discussion.
She doesn't mention Scar's mane at all, and his fur is also a darker color. I know 'cause I love the Lion King, I bought it the day it came out on DVD and have watched it many times.
Also, I am totally laughing at "dangerous charlatan." :D
Actually, I did not misrepresent anything, as anyone capable of reading comprehension can understand. If you re-read my original review, you'll find that I said this book is trash and then provided two examples. (To discuss every example would be to write a review longer than the original book itself.) One example I chose to mock was the author claiming the Lion King as evidence of racism because of the voices supplied by minorities. I went on to write, "Additionally, the noble characters like Mufasa and Simba are drawn in lighter shades of brown than the evil characters like Scar, who has a black mane." Compare that to the author's words, "the evil lion (darker in shade than the good lions)...." My paraphrasing is completely accurate and does not even slightly alter the author's asinine underlying point: the Lion King is evidence of media bias.
Thanks for playing.
Sorry, I'm still laughing at "dangerous charlatan"
I don't think you are. I think you're just out of things to say so now you're just being rude and insulting. I'm ok with that, just don't pretend otherwise. Tatum's book is, to many reasonable people, racist propaganda. Plain and simple. You can either dismiss us and mock us, or ... yeah, ya know what? Just do that. We're fine with it. Seriously - go read Roots or something and pretend the White Man is still keeping people down.
Jane Elliott is even scarier to me than Beverly Tatum. She's the former teacher who did the "blue eyes/brown eyes" experiment on elementary school children that you may be familiar with. She moved on to run her own brand of diversity seminar, which is based on the idea that white people are still perpetuating a pre-civil rights era culture that subjugates anyone who is not white. I'm incredibly grateful that I never lived during that time, and that it would be nearly impossible for me to imagine if I did not see pictures of signs from that era. There is still racism everywhere in the world today, but the difference today is that educated people know that racism is wrong. There are still racists today, but we properly regard them as idiots for being racists. In my experience, we live in a different world than the one described by Elliott and Tatum. No one could get away with doing what Jane Elliott does in that classroom. The way to get rid of racism is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, not to dish out more racism. People like Jane Elliott and Beverly Tatum believe that they are soldiers of righteousness, when they are actually reinforcing the idea that race is something that people should be judged by.
Here is a documentary about what Jane Elliott does:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf2LB0...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neEVoF...
I'm really curious why you guys keep referring to anti-racist activists as "dangerous." I mean, surely, any human has the capacity to be dangerous and any movement can stray from its goals in harmful ways, but there seems to be something especially frightening to you about anti-racism. (Disclosure: I have never heard of Jane Elliott before; I didn't watch the documentary yet. Perhaps she really does pose a threat to people's lives and well-being.) Are you looking for fairness, acceptance, and inclusion?
"Educated people" may know that racism is wrong, and it's true that many overt forms of racism are today thankfully eradicated. There may no longer be separate drinking fountains, but the scars don't heal that quickly. Plenty of people alive today remember those times and didn't see anything particularly wrong with them. Martin Luther King, Jr thought that most white people were "unconscious racists," a charge that the Harvard Implicit Association Tests seem to bear out. In my experience, talking to friends and family, they will sometimes say things that betrays racist thinking. When I comment on that fact, they are quick to say that they're not racist, and I do believe that they would never intentionally discriminate or act in an oppressive way. Yet the language they use perpetuates racism. I'll give you an example: I have a friend who said that a certain neighborhood "got more violent because the blacks moved there." When I probed a bit more, I found out she was referring to acts of white violence visited on blacks. Yet saying that the violence happened BECAUSE blacks moved to an area makes it sound like it is the black people's fault; if they themselves are not committing the violent acts, it makes it sound like it's still their fault by virtue of existing in that space. It's like saying, "Silly black people, why don't you just move away, to somewhere that you're wanted! If you just lived in a different neighborhood, nobody would hurt you!" It lays the responsibility for the racism at the black people's feet instead of the perpetrators'. One could instead say something more accurate like, "white violence against black people increased after black people moved into the neighborhood" or "the neighborhood became more violent after black people moved there because some of the racist white people who also lived there were assaulting them" or "the neighborhood got more violent because black people moved there and the racist whites started to hurt them." Another time someone told my boyfriend & I that "blacks just don't have a culture of education." Of course they claimed not to be racist. My boyfriend pointed out that after slavery ended, black people were extremely poor and had their entire culture taken away from them; it was hard to just survive, much less get schooling in any meaningful capacity. Further, schools are funded by property taxes, so if you are already living in a low income area, your school is just not going to be as well-funded or offer the same quality of education. Yet saying that "blacks just don't have a culture of education," makes it sound like they are inherently stupider, less-educated, less capable, etc. etc. Again it makes it sound like their fault. It ignores the legacy of slavery and the history of racism that they have faced since being brought to this country against their wills, and it ignores the very strong influence that society plays in people's thoughts.
Tatum doesn't think race is "something people should be judged by"--at least that's not the meaning I take from it. In this society, most people of color do have experiences that are different from most white people. Those experiences shape people's lives; those experiences are part of who they are. And as long as most people of color have different experiences due to their skin color, race will be a relevant part of those people's identities, which they may not want to have erased.
So you don't think someone who isn't white can be racist? That seems pretty racist in and of itself.
Why are you attacking this man's review? He has a right to his opinion.
Nenia wrote: "So you don't think someone who isn't white can be racist? That seems pretty racist in and of itself.
Why are you attacking this man's review? He has a right to his opinion."
I'm curious about that also.
I'm a mulatto, just for the record. White mom, black dad, and I'm closer to the white side of my family than the black.
im white black an asian so i would probably have more reason to critique her work if you understand her heart you would be less accusatory in your tone thanks.
You have more reason to critique her work? Why, because you have one more race in you than me?
And no, I don't "understand her heart" because I don't know the woman. I don't think you do, either.
Yep. Because i' ll bet you 50 dollars you have never been persecuted bc of your color.persecutes not someone assumed you were a racist bc your were white..most ppl have biases i have been on both sides so i have a perspective you dont. Give me an example when someone judged you soley bc of your race or ethnicity. You dont understand bc its never happened to you. Are you oppressed have you been accused or threatened by someone bc of a perceived truth? You will probably never understand unless you go live in a country where you are a minority and the native ppl abuse you. So no you
dont get it accept it.
I mean you have every right to critique her work it' s a ' free'country however heres a bombshell someone may have information that you dont. Hmm go figure.
Nenia wrote: "So you don't think someone who isn't white can be racist? That seems pretty racist in and of itself."
Seriously wondering about this myself. Especially as I've had some experiences.
The idea that there exists any group who can't be racist is absurd. People are people, no matter their color or race. If all white people on earth ceased to exist, racism would still flourish.
HJ wrote: "Nenia wrote: "So you don't think someone who isn't white can be racist? That seems pretty racist in and of itself."
Seriously wondering about this myself. Especially as I've had some experiences. "
I'm glad to see that you are expressing curiosity about this issue (seriously, no sarcasm here). I'm going to assume that yes, you are honestly curious and that you haven't yet read the book, because Tatum offers a pretty cogent explanation which I will try to explain here.
She says of course people of any race can be prejudiced against someone from another race. I have experienced a few black people's prejudice against whites. The difference between prejudice and racism is power. I used to be really confused about this. I was like "but everyone has power!" And they do, in a sense: a black person has the power to kill me. If a black person killed me because of my race, or my race was a contributing factor in the hatred that led them to kill me, wouldn't that be racist? And wouldn't that be power? I guess you could argue at this point that it's just semantics, that racism and prejudice are the same. If that is the case, it is a difference of opinion over a definition.
But here is what Tatum and those who say that "blacks can't be racist" are really saying: Although on an individual level, a black person can of course have race hatred and/or power over me, the system is set up to favor whites. For example, I have never had a teacher or supervisor/boss who was black. For example, remember when it was such a huge deal that Obama was elected? For example, remember slavery? The majority of black people in America are descendents of slaves; you might want to say "it's in the past," but I'm in my early twenties and my mom says the first thing she remembers reading in public was "WHITES ONLY." It has an ugly and persistent legacy, because when you steal people from their home and deprive them of their own culture, their own language, and steal their labor, their bodies, and their families from them; when you are extremely hostile to their literacy and try to bar them from voting or working, it has long lasting consequences that don't just go away because slavery is "over now."
So although a person could definitely argue that there is no meaningful distinction between "prejudice" and "racism," there IS a difference between power on an individual level (black person steals from me) and power on an institutional, society-wide level (four black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies; harsher sentencing for blacks than whites over same crimes committed). If you recognize the difference between individual vs institutional power, what do you propose we call that racism which is endemic on a societal level to differentiate it from the kind that is more interpersonal?
I see people get really dug in about this issue all over the internet and I get kind of flabbergasted about it. Tatum is not denouncing white people; it's not as if she and those like her are crying for their pound of flesh or anything. Tatum merely wants to point out this systematic racism so that we can recognize it when we see it and not perpetuate it ourselves. It's really not too much to ask.
First, like the review.
Second, I do agree with several bits of what Paige said above (though I have to ask you really never had a POC as a teacher? I don't mean to sound snarky, but I"m from a big city. I always had at least one minority teacher until I reached graduate school, which would prove supervisor point.)
Third, isn't the Lion King anti-British? Because of Scar?
@Paige: I find it extremely insulting and offensive that you would assume that I gave the book a low rating because I HADN'T read it.
I did read it, and found her to be so condescending and racist and pedantic and hateful that I immediately threw the book in the recycling can so there would be one less copy in the world to circulate the hate-mongering.
Perhaps you mean well, but this is not the way to go about achieving ethnic acceptance.
Chris wrote: "Third, isn't the Lion King anti-British? Because of Scar?"
^-^
HJ wrote: "Chris wrote: "Third, isn't the Lion King anti-British? Because of Scar?"
^-^"
Hahahahaha. <3
ETA: *gasp* It's the Revolutionary War all over again!
It is the Revolutionary War! Haven't you noticed all the bad guys are always British?
Chris wrote: "It is the Revolutionary War! Haven't you noticed all the bad guys are always British?"
Seems to be 'the' bad guy lingual attribute. ;)
Chris wrote: "Second, I do agree with several bits of what Paige said above (though I have to ask you really never had a POC as a teacher? I don't mean to sound snarky, but I"m from a big city. I always had at least one minority teacher until I reached graduate school, which would prove supervisor point.)"
Oh, don't worry, I don't think it's snarky to ask! It really is alarming to me, which is why I mentioned it. Truly I have never had a teacher who was POC. The biggest place I have lived has a population of about 200,000--not enormous, but surely enough to have a few POC teachers out there, right? (So far, wrong.) Actually now that I think about it, the only POC person who has ever had any authority over me was a lunch lady.
Paige wrote: "Chris wrote: "Second, I do agree with several bits of what Paige said above (though I have to ask you really never had a POC as a teacher? I don't mean to sound snarky, but I"m from a big city. I a..."
I go to college in a tiny town in Arkansas, and several of my professors are black, Asian, and Middle Eastern. I recently observed in the public school system (I never went there as a homeschooled child) and met quite a few black and Hispanic teachers. So perhaps it has to do with the particular school or town and their ethnic demographics rather than just being an open-and-shut case of racism. Lord knows Arkansas isn't exactly known for its progressiveness.
Paige wrote: "The internet is a public space; Goodreads doesn't have a policy that you can only comment on someone's review if you agree with them."
Wandering in because this is in my feed since I've got a few friends commenting in here ...
You're not exactly right. There's a setting where you can make it so only friends can comment on your reviews, so that would make them "private" space. Sure, you could still see the comments, but you wouldn't be able to add your voice. Also, the review owner can delete any comments they want even if they choose not to use that option, thus "owning" the space, so while it's not a "policy" per se, the reviewer could remove any dissension from their review space if they chose to.
As to the rest of this discussion ... not touching it with a 10' pole!
Carry on.
Talia wrote: "*Whispers evilly* Join usssss..."
We have candyyyyyyy.
Talia wrote: "Candy of all colors.
...Too much?"
SKITTLES.
Paige wrote: "Nenia--Are you suggesting that I put entire racial and ethnic groups on a pedestal? (Or, as perhaps you might have phrased it, I find it extremely insulting and offensive that you would assume that I would put entire racial and ethnic groups on a pedestal.) I have NEVER advocated for such a position. What I did do was draw a distinction between "interpersonal racism" and "institutional racism." Maybe you don't believe the latter exists. It would be clearer to me if you would state it like that. "Regardless of skin color, it's the stuff on the inside that counts: being a bad person is not limited to one ethnicity." Um...did I ever say it was?"
I believe you said, "I am interested to hear your thoughts about achieving ethnic acceptance--honestly and truly. What would you suggest I do?"
If you are already doing those things than good for you; that's wonderful. I am sorry that you took offense from my explaining my own personal standpoint and views.
That is also why I wrote:
"I think it's important to understand that not everyone is going to share this opinion, and that no amount of browbeating or debate can change someone's mind if they are truly dedicated to their beliefs. That's why I think it is dangerous to go onto reviews like these and attempt to engage someone in a debate just because they don't share your opinion. Even if you are not entering the review with the intent to cause harm, it can still make the reviewer feel persecuted and attacked."
Talia wrote: "Candy of all colors.
...Too much?"
If there's one thing I love, it's candy of all colors!
One last thought on "The Lion King" and racism: if the movie truly was a racist movie telling how the darker lions (representing black people) are evil, then by extension, isn't the ENTIRE POINT of the second movie that one shouldn't judge lions on the color of their fur or their past allegiance with Scar? That we should accept the lions from the Outlands and realize that they aren't intrinsically evil, but perhaps a victim of circumstances and prejudice? There's even interracial marriage between Kiara and Kovu if you want to take it to that level.
You couldn't have said it better!!!!! As soon as I got to the Lion King part I thought exactly the same, about how she doesnt mention the fact that Jeremy Irons is white and Scar has a british accent!!! Worst book i have read in a while.
It's not just white people - I'm mulatto and I say all kinda stuff that the "under-privileged" don't like.
But it's also not just white people and mulattoes. Full black folks like Thomas Sowell say "crazy" stuff too.
So, I mean ... it's almost like race has NOTHING to do with it. If you've got white people, mixed people, and a minority of black people saying "crazy" stuff ... perhaps we can drop this racist crap and deal with the truth: Culture is responsible for many of the problems in the black community.
It's actually very harmful to have a colorblind society
Lest we remember, only white men can be racist and only men can be sexist. Lucky for her she's neither 😁
back to top
message 1:
by
Nina
(new)
Apr 16, 2010 05:34AM
Wow you do not get it to say the least.
reply
|
flag
Nina wrote: "Wow you do not get it to say the least."Nina, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment. I will consider your thorough criticism at length. I particularly appreciate the specific points of mine that you refuted as it gives me much to ponder in the coming days and, indeed, for the rest of my life.
Haha! I love your response to Nina. That's just too funny. Your review was fantastic! I almost picked this book up but I think I will read The End of Racism you recommended instead. Thanks for your thoughtful review.
This is a great review. It's amazing to me how many people actually believe that racism can be solved with more racism. The recommendation of D'Souza is a perfect counterpoint to her ridiculous arguments.
I think it's safe to say that I would never consider anyone who has ever been on Fox News, or ever will be, to be a good representative of people in general. There's a gray area when it comes to people who are libertarians and just putting those ideas out there, but at the end of the day libertarianism is as practical as communism. For example, as long as the civil rights act protects "white" people just as much as anyone else then it's a necessary compromise between freedom and equality.On the other hand, affirmative action acts as a counter-meritocracy. It is not as bad as apartheid, but it is not the same as equal opportunity employment. Affirmative action is bad for everyone because it maintains the status quo instead of encouraging people to study more or work harder in order to advance. Because of this I fail to see how it's anything besides a complete disservice in the long run.
So I think people either want to believe in racism or they don't. People believe in racism because they think it will solve problems, but it only creates more problems.
Despite "not wanting to waste time on this," I can see that you have written quite a thorough rant here as well as spent considerable time thinking of witty insults to post to your commenters. Look, if you want to read books by people that agree with you, go subscribe to the National Review. It looks like you made up your mind before you cracked open this book, so there's going to be nothing in it for you. I think these kinds of self-satisfied internet monologues are often more for the self gratification of those who write them, than for anyone in particular that they are directed to. So it looks like you have achieved your ends.
Mel, your insights were refreshingly accurate. The National Review is an outstanding publication, my statements were saturated with wit, and I am extremely gratified and satisfied with self.
It's much easier to believe in hidden racism than it is to realize that life is hard for everyone and that everything is more complicated than it seems.
My sentiments EXACTLY.God, this book is poisonous and filled with hate.
I think we have enough hate.
I just finished this book. I'm looking at page 48 where she talks about the Lion King for two short paragraphs and she does not once mention that Scar's mane is black--so I don't know how "Tatum makes too much of the fact that Scar's mane is black." She says in the second paragraph that her sons disagreed with her and that was okay with her. From the characterization that you wrote, she seems loony, but what she's actually doing, in that particular instance, is trying to start a dialogue about race in the media. Not so nuts, really.I think this book was right on. I didn't find any of her points to be "racist" at all--because they weren't. The fact that she argues that we are breathing racism in like smog shows that she doesn't think whites are inherently racist. People learn racial biases like they learn any other social custom. She talks extensively about how positive identities are developed as either a white person or a black person.
It almost seems like I read a different book than you did because you say that Tatum made claims or said something that she just didn't say.
When I first came across strong antiracist personalities, I was sort of offended. "I would never oppress someone! Jay-Z has more money than me, how can you say I have more privilege!" I'm embarrassed to admit it now. So I mean, I get it. But give it some time and maybe try again.
I read this book over three years ago, but I'm not in the habit of intentionally misrepresenting authors. The relevant portion of pg. 48 says:"For example, when discussing with [her children] my plans to talk about media stereotyping in this book, I offered the example of the Disney film The Lion King. A very popular family film, I was dismayed at the use of ethnically identifiable voices to characterize the hyenas, clearly the undesirables in the film. The Spanish-accented voice of Cheech Marin and the Black slang of Whoopi Goldberg clearly marked the hyenas racially. The little Lion King is warned never to go to the place where the hyenas live. When the evil lion (darker in shade than the good lions) takes over, and the hyenas have access to power, it is not long before they have ruined the kingdom. 'There goes the neighborhood.'"
Some observations:
1. You're correct that her children disagree with her. Thank god they are more sane than their mother.
2. She explicitly mentions the evil lion is a darker shade than the good lions. Scar's darker shade comes mostly from his black mane as opposed to Mufasa's light brown mane.
3. You have reconfirmed in my mind that this author is a loon, a fool, and a dangerous charlatan. Thanks.
Whether it's intentional or not, from my point of view you did misrepresent it. It doesn't have to be intentional for it to take place. I gave another example of why I feel you were misrepresenting it, but it's like Lion King overshadows everything for you. Which is okay, I guess, because it's an excellent film in my opinion (although I can still critique it on a few fronts), but it seems by focusing on that alone you're missing out on a wider discussion.She doesn't mention Scar's mane at all, and his fur is also a darker color. I know 'cause I love the Lion King, I bought it the day it came out on DVD and have watched it many times.
Also, I am totally laughing at "dangerous charlatan." :D
Actually, I did not misrepresent anything, as anyone capable of reading comprehension can understand. If you re-read my original review, you'll find that I said this book is trash and then provided two examples. (To discuss every example would be to write a review longer than the original book itself.) One example I chose to mock was the author claiming the Lion King as evidence of racism because of the voices supplied by minorities. I went on to write, "Additionally, the noble characters like Mufasa and Simba are drawn in lighter shades of brown than the evil characters like Scar, who has a black mane." Compare that to the author's words, "the evil lion (darker in shade than the good lions)...." My paraphrasing is completely accurate and does not even slightly alter the author's asinine underlying point: the Lion King is evidence of media bias.Thanks for playing.
Sorry, I'm still laughing at "dangerous charlatan"
I don't think you are. I think you're just out of things to say so now you're just being rude and insulting. I'm ok with that, just don't pretend otherwise. Tatum's book is, to many reasonable people, racist propaganda. Plain and simple. You can either dismiss us and mock us, or ... yeah, ya know what? Just do that. We're fine with it. Seriously - go read Roots or something and pretend the White Man is still keeping people down.
Jane Elliott is even scarier to me than Beverly Tatum. She's the former teacher who did the "blue eyes/brown eyes" experiment on elementary school children that you may be familiar with. She moved on to run her own brand of diversity seminar, which is based on the idea that white people are still perpetuating a pre-civil rights era culture that subjugates anyone who is not white. I'm incredibly grateful that I never lived during that time, and that it would be nearly impossible for me to imagine if I did not see pictures of signs from that era. There is still racism everywhere in the world today, but the difference today is that educated people know that racism is wrong. There are still racists today, but we properly regard them as idiots for being racists. In my experience, we live in a different world than the one described by Elliott and Tatum. No one could get away with doing what Jane Elliott does in that classroom. The way to get rid of racism is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, not to dish out more racism. People like Jane Elliott and Beverly Tatum believe that they are soldiers of righteousness, when they are actually reinforcing the idea that race is something that people should be judged by.Here is a documentary about what Jane Elliott does:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf2LB0...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neEVoF...
I'm really curious why you guys keep referring to anti-racist activists as "dangerous." I mean, surely, any human has the capacity to be dangerous and any movement can stray from its goals in harmful ways, but there seems to be something especially frightening to you about anti-racism. (Disclosure: I have never heard of Jane Elliott before; I didn't watch the documentary yet. Perhaps she really does pose a threat to people's lives and well-being.) Are you looking for fairness, acceptance, and inclusion?"Educated people" may know that racism is wrong, and it's true that many overt forms of racism are today thankfully eradicated. There may no longer be separate drinking fountains, but the scars don't heal that quickly. Plenty of people alive today remember those times and didn't see anything particularly wrong with them. Martin Luther King, Jr thought that most white people were "unconscious racists," a charge that the Harvard Implicit Association Tests seem to bear out. In my experience, talking to friends and family, they will sometimes say things that betrays racist thinking. When I comment on that fact, they are quick to say that they're not racist, and I do believe that they would never intentionally discriminate or act in an oppressive way. Yet the language they use perpetuates racism. I'll give you an example: I have a friend who said that a certain neighborhood "got more violent because the blacks moved there." When I probed a bit more, I found out she was referring to acts of white violence visited on blacks. Yet saying that the violence happened BECAUSE blacks moved to an area makes it sound like it is the black people's fault; if they themselves are not committing the violent acts, it makes it sound like it's still their fault by virtue of existing in that space. It's like saying, "Silly black people, why don't you just move away, to somewhere that you're wanted! If you just lived in a different neighborhood, nobody would hurt you!" It lays the responsibility for the racism at the black people's feet instead of the perpetrators'. One could instead say something more accurate like, "white violence against black people increased after black people moved into the neighborhood" or "the neighborhood became more violent after black people moved there because some of the racist white people who also lived there were assaulting them" or "the neighborhood got more violent because black people moved there and the racist whites started to hurt them." Another time someone told my boyfriend & I that "blacks just don't have a culture of education." Of course they claimed not to be racist. My boyfriend pointed out that after slavery ended, black people were extremely poor and had their entire culture taken away from them; it was hard to just survive, much less get schooling in any meaningful capacity. Further, schools are funded by property taxes, so if you are already living in a low income area, your school is just not going to be as well-funded or offer the same quality of education. Yet saying that "blacks just don't have a culture of education," makes it sound like they are inherently stupider, less-educated, less capable, etc. etc. Again it makes it sound like their fault. It ignores the legacy of slavery and the history of racism that they have faced since being brought to this country against their wills, and it ignores the very strong influence that society plays in people's thoughts.
Tatum doesn't think race is "something people should be judged by"--at least that's not the meaning I take from it. In this society, most people of color do have experiences that are different from most white people. Those experiences shape people's lives; those experiences are part of who they are. And as long as most people of color have different experiences due to their skin color, race will be a relevant part of those people's identities, which they may not want to have erased.
So you don't think someone who isn't white can be racist? That seems pretty racist in and of itself.Why are you attacking this man's review? He has a right to his opinion.
Nenia wrote: "So you don't think someone who isn't white can be racist? That seems pretty racist in and of itself.Why are you attacking this man's review? He has a right to his opinion."
I'm curious about that also.
I'm a mulatto, just for the record. White mom, black dad, and I'm closer to the white side of my family than the black.
im white black an asian so i would probably have more reason to critique her work if you understand her heart you would be less accusatory in your tone thanks.
You have more reason to critique her work? Why, because you have one more race in you than me?And no, I don't "understand her heart" because I don't know the woman. I don't think you do, either.
Yep. Because i' ll bet you 50 dollars you have never been persecuted bc of your color.persecutes not someone assumed you were a racist bc your were white..most ppl have biases i have been on both sides so i have a perspective you dont. Give me an example when someone judged you soley bc of your race or ethnicity. You dont understand bc its never happened to you. Are you oppressed have you been accused or threatened by someone bc of a perceived truth? You will probably never understand unless you go live in a country where you are a minority and the native ppl abuse you. So no youdont get it accept it.
I mean you have every right to critique her work it' s a ' free'country however heres a bombshell someone may have information that you dont. Hmm go figure.
Nenia wrote: "So you don't think someone who isn't white can be racist? That seems pretty racist in and of itself."Seriously wondering about this myself. Especially as I've had some experiences.
The idea that there exists any group who can't be racist is absurd. People are people, no matter their color or race. If all white people on earth ceased to exist, racism would still flourish.
HJ wrote: "Nenia wrote: "So you don't think someone who isn't white can be racist? That seems pretty racist in and of itself."Seriously wondering about this myself. Especially as I've had some experiences. "
I'm glad to see that you are expressing curiosity about this issue (seriously, no sarcasm here). I'm going to assume that yes, you are honestly curious and that you haven't yet read the book, because Tatum offers a pretty cogent explanation which I will try to explain here.
She says of course people of any race can be prejudiced against someone from another race. I have experienced a few black people's prejudice against whites. The difference between prejudice and racism is power. I used to be really confused about this. I was like "but everyone has power!" And they do, in a sense: a black person has the power to kill me. If a black person killed me because of my race, or my race was a contributing factor in the hatred that led them to kill me, wouldn't that be racist? And wouldn't that be power? I guess you could argue at this point that it's just semantics, that racism and prejudice are the same. If that is the case, it is a difference of opinion over a definition.
But here is what Tatum and those who say that "blacks can't be racist" are really saying: Although on an individual level, a black person can of course have race hatred and/or power over me, the system is set up to favor whites. For example, I have never had a teacher or supervisor/boss who was black. For example, remember when it was such a huge deal that Obama was elected? For example, remember slavery? The majority of black people in America are descendents of slaves; you might want to say "it's in the past," but I'm in my early twenties and my mom says the first thing she remembers reading in public was "WHITES ONLY." It has an ugly and persistent legacy, because when you steal people from their home and deprive them of their own culture, their own language, and steal their labor, their bodies, and their families from them; when you are extremely hostile to their literacy and try to bar them from voting or working, it has long lasting consequences that don't just go away because slavery is "over now."
So although a person could definitely argue that there is no meaningful distinction between "prejudice" and "racism," there IS a difference between power on an individual level (black person steals from me) and power on an institutional, society-wide level (four black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies; harsher sentencing for blacks than whites over same crimes committed). If you recognize the difference between individual vs institutional power, what do you propose we call that racism which is endemic on a societal level to differentiate it from the kind that is more interpersonal?
I see people get really dug in about this issue all over the internet and I get kind of flabbergasted about it. Tatum is not denouncing white people; it's not as if she and those like her are crying for their pound of flesh or anything. Tatum merely wants to point out this systematic racism so that we can recognize it when we see it and not perpetuate it ourselves. It's really not too much to ask.
First, like the review.Second, I do agree with several bits of what Paige said above (though I have to ask you really never had a POC as a teacher? I don't mean to sound snarky, but I"m from a big city. I always had at least one minority teacher until I reached graduate school, which would prove supervisor point.)
Third, isn't the Lion King anti-British? Because of Scar?
@Paige: I find it extremely insulting and offensive that you would assume that I gave the book a low rating because I HADN'T read it.I did read it, and found her to be so condescending and racist and pedantic and hateful that I immediately threw the book in the recycling can so there would be one less copy in the world to circulate the hate-mongering.
Perhaps you mean well, but this is not the way to go about achieving ethnic acceptance.
Chris wrote: "Third, isn't the Lion King anti-British? Because of Scar?"^-^
HJ wrote: "Chris wrote: "Third, isn't the Lion King anti-British? Because of Scar?"^-^"
Hahahahaha. <3
ETA: *gasp* It's the Revolutionary War all over again!
It is the Revolutionary War! Haven't you noticed all the bad guys are always British?
Chris wrote: "It is the Revolutionary War! Haven't you noticed all the bad guys are always British?"Seems to be 'the' bad guy lingual attribute. ;)
Chris wrote: "Second, I do agree with several bits of what Paige said above (though I have to ask you really never had a POC as a teacher? I don't mean to sound snarky, but I"m from a big city. I always had at least one minority teacher until I reached graduate school, which would prove supervisor point.)"Oh, don't worry, I don't think it's snarky to ask! It really is alarming to me, which is why I mentioned it. Truly I have never had a teacher who was POC. The biggest place I have lived has a population of about 200,000--not enormous, but surely enough to have a few POC teachers out there, right? (So far, wrong.) Actually now that I think about it, the only POC person who has ever had any authority over me was a lunch lady.
Paige wrote: "Chris wrote: "Second, I do agree with several bits of what Paige said above (though I have to ask you really never had a POC as a teacher? I don't mean to sound snarky, but I"m from a big city. I a..."I go to college in a tiny town in Arkansas, and several of my professors are black, Asian, and Middle Eastern. I recently observed in the public school system (I never went there as a homeschooled child) and met quite a few black and Hispanic teachers. So perhaps it has to do with the particular school or town and their ethnic demographics rather than just being an open-and-shut case of racism. Lord knows Arkansas isn't exactly known for its progressiveness.
Paige wrote: "The internet is a public space; Goodreads doesn't have a policy that you can only comment on someone's review if you agree with them."Wandering in because this is in my feed since I've got a few friends commenting in here ...
You're not exactly right. There's a setting where you can make it so only friends can comment on your reviews, so that would make them "private" space. Sure, you could still see the comments, but you wouldn't be able to add your voice. Also, the review owner can delete any comments they want even if they choose not to use that option, thus "owning" the space, so while it's not a "policy" per se, the reviewer could remove any dissension from their review space if they chose to.
As to the rest of this discussion ... not touching it with a 10' pole!
Carry on.
Talia wrote: "*Whispers evilly* Join usssss..."We have candyyyyyyy.
Talia wrote: "Candy of all colors....Too much?"
SKITTLES.
Paige wrote: "Nenia--Are you suggesting that I put entire racial and ethnic groups on a pedestal? (Or, as perhaps you might have phrased it, I find it extremely insulting and offensive that you would assume that I would put entire racial and ethnic groups on a pedestal.) I have NEVER advocated for such a position. What I did do was draw a distinction between "interpersonal racism" and "institutional racism." Maybe you don't believe the latter exists. It would be clearer to me if you would state it like that. "Regardless of skin color, it's the stuff on the inside that counts: being a bad person is not limited to one ethnicity." Um...did I ever say it was?"I believe you said, "I am interested to hear your thoughts about achieving ethnic acceptance--honestly and truly. What would you suggest I do?"
If you are already doing those things than good for you; that's wonderful. I am sorry that you took offense from my explaining my own personal standpoint and views.
That is also why I wrote:
"I think it's important to understand that not everyone is going to share this opinion, and that no amount of browbeating or debate can change someone's mind if they are truly dedicated to their beliefs. That's why I think it is dangerous to go onto reviews like these and attempt to engage someone in a debate just because they don't share your opinion. Even if you are not entering the review with the intent to cause harm, it can still make the reviewer feel persecuted and attacked."
Talia wrote: "Candy of all colors....Too much?"
If there's one thing I love, it's candy of all colors!
One last thought on "The Lion King" and racism: if the movie truly was a racist movie telling how the darker lions (representing black people) are evil, then by extension, isn't the ENTIRE POINT of the second movie that one shouldn't judge lions on the color of their fur or their past allegiance with Scar? That we should accept the lions from the Outlands and realize that they aren't intrinsically evil, but perhaps a victim of circumstances and prejudice? There's even interracial marriage between Kiara and Kovu if you want to take it to that level.
You couldn't have said it better!!!!! As soon as I got to the Lion King part I thought exactly the same, about how she doesnt mention the fact that Jeremy Irons is white and Scar has a british accent!!! Worst book i have read in a while.
It's not just white people - I'm mulatto and I say all kinda stuff that the "under-privileged" don't like. But it's also not just white people and mulattoes. Full black folks like Thomas Sowell say "crazy" stuff too.
So, I mean ... it's almost like race has NOTHING to do with it. If you've got white people, mixed people, and a minority of black people saying "crazy" stuff ... perhaps we can drop this racist crap and deal with the truth: Culture is responsible for many of the problems in the black community.
It's actually very harmful to have a colorblind society
Lest we remember, only white men can be racist and only men can be sexist. Lucky for her she's neither 😁
